No, it’s not

Here’s a general reminder that there is no good enough reason to insist that a lack of sex is a sign of an unhealthy relationship, especially in direct response to a powerpoint about asexuality, and that this is completely inappropriate.

Just get out of here with that nonsense.

“I’m not saying that being in a healthy relationship means you have sex,” this kid is basically saying, “but, being in a healthy relationship means you have sex.”

8 responses to “No, it’s not”

The person who made that response isn’t asexual themselves (at least, according to their about page). They’re clearly missing the point as to why it’s important to emphasize that a relationship doesn’t need sex in order to be healthy. Visibility efforts (however well or poorly executed) so often get these reactions that I think it would be good to address the concept of compulsory sexuality in 101 education in order to nip those reactions in the bud.

Seriously! That should be a basic priority of any introductory material at this point. To some extent I don’t know how much of that is even the fault of the powerpower itself, although there may be other things it could have done, but — this kid literally looked right at a thing saying “romantic relationships don’t need sex” and was like “okay that may be true for you weirdo exceptions, but for the rest of us normals, THERE MUST ALWAYS BE SEX OR ELSE THERE IS A PROBLEM” which! also neglects to consider that allosexual people can be sex-averse too! (a good thing to mention when you’re affirming nonsexual romances) Or that even sex-loving allo folk can do the abstinence-until-marriage thing (Is that a healthy relationship in their book, because sex is planned for eventually, or is it unhealthy until the sex starts? arrgh). People don’t just need to hear “asexual people’s romances are valid without sex”, people also need to hear “everyone’s romances would be valid without sex”. That is clearly not the same as “Sex is not important to anyone and you shouldn’t have it”. This is so obvious, but it really has to be spelled out for some people who are still neck-deep in believing But The Sex Must Happen.

Isn’t it commonsense to assume that relationships in general don’t require sex in order to be healthy, and that anyone’s relationship can be valid without it? This is the first time I’ve seen someone say that only applies to asexuals. I guess it really does need to be spelled out.

Also in regards to those who abstain until marriage, I wonder what that person would think about those who married young, and shortly after dating just because they wanted sex with each other so badly?

Unfortunately, this is not the normal way of thinking–at least within married/devoted couples. I’ve heard marriage counselors (specifically, the people who head up Marriage Boot Camp on WE) say, under no uncertain terms, that a healthy sex life one of the core elements of a healthy marriage. That without this one key element, a marriage would fail. These are trained professionals, who pressured their “clients” to participate in foreplay and to have sex because if they didn’t, they were not honoring their commitment to each other.

I completely agree. Respect for and validation of relationships without sex aren’t just important for asexuals.
Also, I always find it suspicious when people make a point to comment on someone else’s issues with “but where’s the disclaimer that this is not universal?” Crafty deflection technique to stop engaging with the issue raised.

(also, I’m not sure how useful it is to put this here, but as there seem to be quite some people engaging this person in fruitless arguments about this post: just don’t engage this person. They take it extremely personal that there is no acknowledgment in that powerpoint of how important sex is to *other* people)

[…] to make this post as I type this, and I may choose to take it down later. This is in regards to a previous post and a discussion that was spawned by the same powerpoint which brought you this whole discussion. […]